Jump to content

What stops us and other things from being the same..identical


Recommended Posts

The different amounts of chemical element to represent the same composition.

For a human body each has different amount of water, different amount of fat, different number of globule, ... 

For rocks, more or less minerals depending on the location, more or less quartz depending on the location, ...


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atoms are the same in terms of composition, as long as you have the same isotope.

Larger composite systems have opportunities to have differences, where there are multiple ways for things to connect to each other, or you can have contaminants. Something with 10^20 parts in it have a lot of ways they can be put together with subtle differences. Something with 2 parts might only have one way to be put together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we need two threads (or is it three if we include the closed one) on this subject from the same author ?

What makes them different ?

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kartazion said:

The different amounts of chemical element to represent the same composition.

For a human body each has different amount of water, different amount of fat, different number of globule, ... 

For rocks, more or less minerals depending on the location, more or less quartz depending on the location, ...


 

Why just chemical ...? Or is that one of other things  you know of ..? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

Why just chemical ...? Or is that one of other things  you know of ..? 

It's the scale, and the laws that dictate the reactions. There are a limited number of ways you can put atoms together to form a molecule. Often it's just one, for simple molecules. (AFAIK, molecular isomers tend to happen with bigger molecules)

Once you are combining one molecule with another, the number of possible configurations increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Atoms are the same in terms of composition, as long as you have the same isotope.

Larger composite systems have opportunities to have differences, where there are multiple ways for things to connect to each other, or you can have contaminants. Something with 10^20 parts in it have a lot of ways they can be put together with subtle differences. Something with 2 parts might only have one way to be put together.

Got you ....👍 are  the compositions that just have two parts of there compostions are those parts ever identical ..what I have gathered is that two atomic particles can only be identical if there various states are the same at the exact time and this slight difference is what gives  the particles there ability to interact  and coalesce with each other ....electrons in the same state dont make them identical either as they are travelling or rotating at different speeds which effects them cold iron and liquid iron.. ..they also have different number of electrons ....they also have different masses to each other..so at what point are they identical  ....?

53 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:

1 is 1

2 is 2

3 is 3

But 123 does not equal 321.

Can you show two identical number 1s....can you show two identical PZKFW 5 Panther tanks ♡....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

electrons in the same state dont make them identical either as they are travelling or rotating at different speeds

There you go again laying down the law about something you do not properly understand.

I already offered you proper scientific discussion about this in the other thread you started this morning, but you appear to have declined.

It is instructive to consider the following chemical compounds.

1) CH3.CH3 and Ch3.CH2.CH3
and
2) CH3.COOH and CH3.CH2.COOH

In the first pair the carbon atoms in the first molecule are chemically 'the same' but in the second molecule the centre carbon is slightly different from the other two.

In the second pair none of the carbon atoms are 'the same'.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

electrons in the same state dont make them identical either as they are travelling or rotating at different speeds which effects them cold iron and liquid iron.. ..they also have different number of electrons ....they also have different masses to each other..so at what point are they identical  ....?

Two electrons can't be in the same state in an atom. Their macroscopic state of travel has no effect on their quantum state. They do not have different masses.

Iron has different isotopes, which have different masses. But an atom of Fe-56, for example, is that same as any other atom of Fe-56, and if the atoms are in the ground state they, too, are identical. Atoms that are fermions have been seen to follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very small changes can have a big effect on a substance.  For instance salt which is NaCl, is the ionic form of sodium and chlorine that must be consumed to some level to stay alive.  But if the Cl- ion which is vital to life were to lose 1 electron (go from 18 to 17 electrons) the ion would become a deadly gas.  If the Na+ ion which is vital for life were to gain 1 electron (go from 10 to 11 electrons) the ion would become a metal that burns when it come in contact with water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, studiot said:

There you go again laying down the law about something you do not properly understand.

I already offered you proper scientific discussion about this in the other thread you started this morning, but you appear to have declined.

It is instructive to consider the following chemical compounds.

1) CH3.CH3 and Ch3.CH2.CH3
and
2) CH3.COOH and CH3.CH2.COOH

In the first pair the carbon atoms in the first molecule are chemically 'the same' but in the second molecule the centre carbon is slightly different from the other two.

In the second pair none of the carbon atoms are 'the same'.

 

Screenshot_20210630-071110_Chrome.jpg

3 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

 

Screenshot_20210630-071110_Chrome.jpg

 

Screenshot_20210630-143014_Chrome.jpg

Screenshot_20210630-143137_Chrome.jpg

Screenshot_20210630-143148_Chrome.jpg

They are not identical .....despite what YOU say !!!!!! 🤓

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

 

Screenshot_20210630-071110_Chrome.jpg

Can be different if they are in different states. Which what I've been saying. 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Atoms are the same in terms of composition, as long as you have the same isotope.

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

an atom of Fe-56, for example, is that same as any other atom of Fe-56, and if the atoms are in the ground state they, too, are identical.

What Dr. Baird is ignoring is that a small (fraction of a gram) chunk of some material will have >10^20 atoms in it. Some will have some excited electrons, but normally the majority will be in the ground state. And there will be a bunch of excited-state atoms that are in the same excited state.

Are they all identical? No. Some will be in a different state. But most are identical. IOW, not being in an identical state is an exception.

 

That bit at the end, about the Nobel prize, is Bose-Einstein condensation, which I've mentioned. It's impossible to do if the atoms aren't identical.

If you have a chance, ask Dr Baird why the electrons in any atom aren't all in the ground state, if they aren't identical.

And stop cherry-picking answers (and also, cite your sources). I notice you didn't include the very end of Baird's post

With that said, don't think that atoms have individual identities beyond what has been mentioned here. If two carbon atoms are in the exact same molecular, atomic, electronic and nuclear states, then those two carbon atoms are identical, no matter where they came from or what has happened to them in the past.

 

Translation: he was explaining the exceptions to being identical (and ignoring some physics in doing so)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

Can be different if they are in different states. Which what I've been saying. 

 

What Dr. Baird is ignoring is that a small (fraction of a gram) chunk of some material will have >10^20 atoms in it. Some will have some excited electrons, but normally the majority will be in the ground state. And there will be a bunch of excited-state atoms that are in the same excited state.

Are they all identical? No. Some will be in a different state. But most are identical. IOW, not being in an identical state is an exception.

 

That bit at the end, about the Nobel prize, is Bose-Einstein condensation, which I've mentioned. It's impossible to do if the atoms aren't identical.

If you have a chance, ask Dr Baird why the electrons in any atom aren't all in the ground state, if they aren't identical.

And stop cherry-picking answers. I notice you didn't include the very end of Baird's post

With that said, don't think that atoms have individual identities beyond what has been mentioned here. If two carbon atoms are in the exact same molecular, atomic, electronic and nuclear states, then those two carbon atoms are identical, no matter where they came from or what has happened to them in the past.

 

Translation: he was explaining the exceptions to being identical (and ignoring some physics in doing so)

But they never are  in those positions in nature ...so they are not identical ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Andrew William Henderson said:

But they never are  in those positions in nature ...so they are not identical ....

There you go again, making unfounded expansive claims. You sure seem to "know" a lot of things without having much knowledge about science.

People have made these measurements I've discussed, so "never" is just flat-out wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

They are not identical .....despite what YOU say !!!!!! 🤓

Gosh can you not read ?

I said before that it depends upon the conditions.

So I posted conditions where they are the same and conditions where they are not the same.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

There you go again, making unfounded expansive claims. You sure seem to "know" a lot of things without having much knowledge about science.

People have made these measurements I've discussed, so "never" is just flat-out wrong.

Seems I have more than you ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

Seems I have more than you ?

What is wrong with you? swansont and others were kind enough to make a genuine attempt to answer your questions, and rather than take the opportunity to learn something you become contrary and insulting. If you are unable to behave properly here please move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

What is wrong with you? swansont and others were kind enough to make a genuine attempt to answer your questions, and rather than take the opportunity to learn something you become contrary and insulting. If you are unable to behave properly here please move on.

+1  I will add flagrantly flouting the rules here to that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What is wrong with you? swansont and others were kind enough to make a genuine attempt to answer your questions, and rather than take the opportunity to learn something you become contrary and insulting. If you are unable to behave properly here please move on.

No they did not ..they dismissed me immediately despite showing there replys to be wrong ...they can not produce an example of  nature producing the same phenomena...even conceding that atomic particles can not be identical in nature ..but are still identical ????

54 minutes ago, studiot said:

+1  I will add flagrantly flouting the rules here to that

rules .....what!!!  You must not know more than us .... oryou must not question percived ideas ....? I think you all must be pretty put out that a mon scientist has brought to light something you never thought up yourself .. if nothing in nature can produce the same thing  why would extraterrestrial lifeforms be the exception .....

It can only be prebiotic material if that prebiotic material becomes Abiogenesis it's not Abiogenesis  unless Abiogenesis produces biology ... the material and causation of prebiotic material can not exsit twice  what material is available can not then be the same Abiogenesis that happened here it would produce anything other than what has been produced before....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

No they did not ..they dismissed me immediately despite showing there replys to be wrong ...they can not produce an example of  nature producing the same phenomena...even conceding that atomic particles can not be identical in nature ..but are still identical ????

You didn't show anyone's reply to be wrong. Examples were given. Nobody conceded that atomic particles cannot be identical. You're just making all that up. Or is it that you just didn't understand the answers?

It occurs to me that you haven't presented anything here that's an independent thought, based on an understanding of science. You've been parroting what others have said, and quite obviously with limited comprehension.

Your prowess in Googling and copy-pasting doesn't measure up to people who have actually studied science, and have an understanding of it. Things were OK when you asked the question, but to reject responses because you don't like them - they don't fit your worldview or whatever, rather than pointing to established scientific concepts - that's not OK.

Quote

I think you all must be pretty put out that a mon scientist has brought to light something you never thought up yourself

Oh, the hubris to think this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

I think you all must be pretty put out that a mon scientist has brought to light something you never thought up yourself ..

We feel like the NFL would feel if someone who'd never played American football insisted that the problem with the game is that the ball isn't round. It's compounded by the frustration that whenever they try to explain the game, the amateur just keeps repeating his claim and doubling down in more bizarre and insistent ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Phi for All changed the title to What stops us and other things from being the same..identical
5 hours ago, swansont said:

You didn't show anyone's reply to be wrong. Examples were given. Nobody conceded that atomic particles cannot be identical. You're just making all that up. Or is it that you just didn't understand the answers?

It occurs to me that you haven't presented anything here that's an independent thought, based on an understanding of science. You've been parroting what others have said, and quite obviously with limited comprehension.

Your prowess in Googling and copy-pasting doesn't measure up to people who have actually studied science, and have an understanding of it. Things were OK when you asked the question, but to reject responses because you don't like them - they don't fit your worldview or whatever, rather than pointing to established scientific concepts - that's not OK.

Oh, the hubris to think this.

This looks like a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2021 at 12:53 PM, swansont said:

It's the scale, and the laws that dictate the reactions. There are a limited number of ways you can put atoms together to form a molecule. Often it's just one, for simple molecules. (AFAIK, molecular isomers tend to happen with bigger molecules)

Once you are combining one molecule with another, the number of possible configurations increase.

The shape of the matter they have formed can then be of different shapes ...is that right ? How many  carbon atoms are required to make two particles of carbon distinguishable...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Andrew William Henderson said:

The shape of the matter they have formed can then be of different shapes ...is that right ? How many  carbon atoms are required to make two particles of carbon distinguishable...?

That's not what I said - it's not that the carbons are distinguishable. It's what you have made out of the carbon. Two diamonds will be different. There will be lattice defects and inclusions that make them different, even if each of the carbon atoms all have the same composition.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.